In an interview with Germany’s mass circulation daily Bild, the 38-year-old American actor said: “I am a bit drained. I’m now going to take a long, long break. I’ve done three films in two years and I’m just worn out.”

“I would like to improve the world a bit. I will fly around the world doing good for the environment.”

OK, let’s take him at his word. And let’s look at what the effect of this trip will be on Mother Earth.

Now, you know a Hollywood “A-list” type like DiCaprio isn’t going to fly anywhere on regularly scheduled airlines. He’ll fly on a private or chartered jet.

Let’s be kind and assume he uses a small LearJet – say, a small one like the Bombardier 35A. That aircraft can cruise comfortably at around 400 knots, or 460 MPH, for a bit over 2000 miles – in round numbers, about of 4.5 hours flight time.

That aircraft uses 197 gallons of jet fuel per hour at cruise. So each 2000 miles will use about 885 gallons of jet fuel.

Now, assume 30,000 miles for the total length of DiCaprio’s round the world “save the planet” tour. (He’ll certainly be visiting “down under”, NZ, and probably South Africa and South America, plus North America, Europe, and parts of Asia – so that’s probably an underestimate.) Doing the math, that comes to around 13,300 gallons of jet fuel.

Chemically, jet fuel is kerosene-based. Kerosene has an average chemical composition of C12H26. That means it’s approximately 85% carbon by weight.

Jet fuel weighs about 6.8 pounds per gallon. So DiCaprio is going to burn about 90,400 pounds – or about 45 tons – of jet fuel on his trip.

That amount of jet fuel will contain about 38.3 tons of carbon. But remember: according to the “save the world” crowd – “Carbon . . . . baaaaad!”

Why is carbon “bad”? Well, according to the “save the world” crowd it’s because it produces carbon dioxide.

Virtually every atom of carbon in that jet fuel will produce a molecule of CO2 when burned. (The tiny fraction that doesn’t will produce stuff that’s even worse as a pollutant – unburned hydrocarbons, soot, etc . . . .) Since the carbon is only about 27% of the weight of each molecule of CO2, burning this amount of jet fuel will add more than 140 tons of carbon dioxide to the earth’s atmosphere.

That’s just the jet travel. It doesn’t account for the fuel for DiCaprio’s chauffer-driven limo at each stop. (What, do you expect him to rent a Volkswagon and drive himself anywhere?) Or the fuel for the vehicles for his bodyguards or his entourage. Or the energy used to heat/cool their hotel rooms. Or . . .well, you get the picture.

Also, a “round the world” trip like this shouldn’t take more than 3 months. All of the above fuel and energy? That’s only what DiCaprio’s going to waste – unnecessarily – in about 3 months. Wonder what he’ll burn through during the rest of the year?

Here’s a real world sanity check: a guy or gal driving a car that gets 20 miles to the gallon 15,000 miles annually burns 750 gallons of fuel. That’s only about 5.6% of the more than 13,400 gallons of fuel DiCaprio will waste in 90 days during his meaningless publicity stunt.

Hypocrisy, thy name is “Hollywood”. Or here, maybe that should be “DiCaprio”.

Look, I’m all for conserving resources for the next generation. I don’t want to see the environment spoiled. I want my kids and grandkids to have a nice place to live. They won’t if we screw up the planet.

But what DiCaprio’s doing here isn’t “saving the planet” – it’s nothing more than meaningless grandstanding to feed his ego. Like so many other libidiot ideas and causes, it sounds good initially and makes people “feel good”. But when you analyze it, just like many libidiot ideas and causes it’s actually wasteful and counterproductive.

Want to really help “save the earth”, Lenny my boy? Then freaking stay home vice traveling the globe – and promote conservation from and within Hollywood.

You make films for a living. You should be able to figure out how to reach people from a distance.

(Author’s note: the original version of this article used diesel fuel as a basis for calculation of the amount of CO2 generated by DiCaprio’s upcoming “save the world” tour. That was an error. The reference originally consulted erroneously implied modern jet fuel is chemically similar to diesel fuel. That is not the case; like most older jet fuels, modern Jet A and Jet A1 are kerosene-based. The error has been corrected above.)

Very well done, Hondo! I like it when someone besides mysel points these kinds of things out to those “feel good” idiots crowd. If DiCaprio was real serious about the environment as he thinks he might be, he’d be pulling the chain to get more refineries built in the USA and use our own resources here rather than importing from third world countries that “hate” us. Oh hey, that would put more people to work too, wouldn’t it? You need to use correct the pound per gallon of jet fuel for your calculations to be correct. Jet A & A1 weigh 6.8 lbs per gal. verses #2 diesel 7.15 pound per gal.

I’ve just started having these sorts research how Solar Panels are made, then tell them to look up pictures of Chinese strip mines to put two and two together. Or I ask them what they plan to do about the water problems seeing as how those actually have some scientific basis to work with.

This isn’t about doing good, it’s about feeling good. They want someone to pat them on the back and proclaim something inane like, “Atta boy!”. Useless twit.

OWB: pretty sure they use Jet A in the US and Jet A1 overseas. Best I can tell, Jet B is generally only used in very cold climates.

I used weight for Jet A in the revised article. Jet A1 is slightly lighter and thus has slightly lower energy density; you’d have to burn a bit more fuel by volume if using Jet A1 because of that fact.

Let’s assume then, that the average Hollywood production goes 60-90 days. I’ll split the difference and go 75 days per. Times three movies, we get 225 days. Now again, I’ll be generous and assume an average of 12 hours a day during production (not always the case, but whatever.) So now we’re up to about 2700 hours working in the past two years.

IOW, about the same number of hours I put in at work last year, minus commute.

@12: most likely you are correct. I intentionally used the small Lear in the article to give Lenny-boy the benefit of the doubt. In reality, he’d almost certainly use a bigger plane and thus more fuel. The environmental impact would thus be significantly worse than I’ve calculated.

He feels he needs to drum up more Libtard hypocrisy street cred in order to win obvious political awards disguised as something about acting is all. That dude is an absolute clown but a decent actor.

I’ll never forget the promotional tour for Inception where him and his child like co-star Ellen Page just went around insulting possible viewers as though it was nothing because what they were doing was noble.

I though it was funny that Obama failed to mention Hollywood during his gun violence speech. After all, who benefits most under the bush era tax plans while at the same trashing others and supporting Obama with donations and fundraisers?

This doesn’t surprise me, after all actors spend their careers mouthing someone else’s words. Thus when they need to use their own words they often find themselves at a loss for an intelligent exchange to express their thoughts. DiCaprio makes some interesting movies, but like many artists their world view has no basis in reality. Another reason to avoid making celebrity worship part of any culture, the good looking, vacuous actors generate nothing of value beyond a few hours of amusement. For this they are paid extremely well, we should remember that is enough, they are not gods nor are many of them particularly interesting when they are not prancing about in front of a camera or on stage.

Ex-PH2, 2/17 Air Cav – I thought it might be because she was worried she may have miscounted days prior to meeting “Knees2TheBreeze” (DeWald?) at the NoTell Motel last week. (smile)

ObamaGirl: care to point out the “lies” in my article? As a self-professed “PHd” student, surely you must know enough basic chem and math to be able to do that.

If there are any lies or significant errors, that is.

I’m guessing we’ll hear crickets from you on that count, though. Because while it’s easy to claim that someone is “lying” – like you did in comment 22 above – proving it is a different story. Especially when they’re not lying, and the math and science involved is both simple and sound.

Anyone else out there want to check my references and do the math independently, feel free to do so.

Let’s say, purely for the purpose of debate, that your math is completely in error, Hondo. So what? It wouldn’t change the point of your post if the figures are half your estimate, three times your estimate, or something else entirely.

Dang,VOV, you said it for me. Actors act. While some actors write and direct, most do not. While I respect some of them for the real work, I have never seen any of them as deep thinkers. Why even one drop of ink is wasted on their views is beyond me. I will listen to their comments on their work, for the most part they are totally vapid in most aspects of the real world. They exist in the realm of fantasy. Celebrity should not endow them with any credibility whatsoever. Point of fact, Kim Kardashian, famous for being famous. The Prosecution rests.

@33 Actually no, but Hondo is usually so careful with his numerical calculations I can find no errors and I do check because I like to show that I am pretty sharp around a slide rule when it comes to numbers as well…..in this particular set of calculations I consider he is being fairly conservative in offering DiCaprio the little plane….there’s not a chance in h3ll that little twerp will ride the small plane….thus the impact, as he suggests in an earlier response, will be more damaging to the environment than predicted in the body of the article.

@34 plus that whole “housewives” franchise and the little chubby girl from the beauty pageants…what the h3ll is the attraction?

Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop engined aircraft and are not to be confused with Avgas. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation : Jet A-1 and Jet A, both are kerosene type fuels. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B which is a wide cut kerosene (a blend of gasoline and kerosene) but it is rarely used except in very cold climates.

JET A-1

Jet A-1 is a kerosene grade of fuel suitable for most turbine engined aircraft. It is produced to a stringent internationally agreed standard, has a flash point above 38°C (100°F) and a freeze point maximum of -47°C. It is widely available outside the U.S.A. Jet A-1 meets the requirements of British specification DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1), (formerly DERD 2494 (AVTUR)), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosine Type), NATO Code F-35.

JET A

Jet A is a similar kerosene type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specification and normally only available in the U.S.A. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (-40°C). It is supplied against the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

JET B

Jet B is a distillate covering the naphtha and kerosene fractions. It can be used as an alternative to Jet A-1 but because it is more difficult to handle (higher flammability), there is only significant demand in very cold climates where its better cold weather performance is important. In Canada it is supplied against the Canadian Specification CAN/CGSB 3.23

MILITARY

JP-4

JP-4 is the military equivalent of Jet B with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-5624U Grade JP-4. (As of Jan 5, 2004, JP-4 and 5 meet the same US Military Specification). JP-4 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-88 AVTAG/FSII (formerly DERD 2454),where FSII stands for Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor. NATO Code F-40.

JP-5

JP-5 is a high flash point kerosene meeting the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-5624U Grade JP-5 (as of Jan 5, 2004, JP-4 and 5 meet the same US Military Specification). JP-5 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-86 AVCAT/FSII (formerly DERD 2452). NATO Code F-44.

JP-8

JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-DTL-83133E. JP-8 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34.

AVIATION FUEL ADDITIVES

Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.

A few additives in common use are as follows:

1. Anti-knock additives reduce the tendency of gasoline to detonate. Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is the only approved anti-knock additive for aviation use and has been used in motor and aviation gasolines since the early 1930s.

2. Anti-oxidants prevent the formation of gum deposits on fuel system components caused by oxidation of the fuel in storage and also inhibit the formation of peroxide compounds in certain jet fuels.

3. Static dissipater additives reduce the hazardous effects of static electricity generated by movement of fuel through modern high flow-rate fuel transfer systems. Static dissipater additives do not reduce the need for `bonding’ to ensure electrical continuity between metal components (e.g. aircraft and fuelling equipment) nor do they influence hazards from lightning strikes.

5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (Anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel.

6. Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation.

7. Biocide additives are sometimes used to combat microbiological growths in jet fuel, often by direct addition to aircraft tanks; as indicated above some anti-icing additives appear to possess biocidal properties.

8. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel, to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100, to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system.

POWER BOOSTING FLUIDS

It used to be commonplace for large piston engines to require special fluids to increase their take-off power. Similar injection systems are also incorporated in some turbo-jet and turbo-prop engines. The power increase is achieved by cooling the air consumed, to raise its density and thereby increase the weight of air available for combustion. This effect can be obtained by using water alone but it is usual to inject a mixture of methanol and water to produce a greater degree of evaporative cooling and also to provide additional fuel energy.

For piston engines, methanol/water mixtures are used and these may have 1 percent of a corrosion inhibiting oil added. The injection system may be used to compensate for the power lost when operating under high temperature and/or high altitude conditions (i.e. with low air densities) or to obtain increased take-off power under normal atmospheric conditions, by permitting higher boost pressure for a short period.

Both water alone and methanol/water mixtures are used in gas turbine engines, principally to restore the take-off power (or thrust) lost when operating under low air density conditions. Use of a corrosion inhibitor in power boost fluids supplied for these engines is not permitted.

The methanol and water used must be of very high quality to avoid formation of engine deposits. The water must be either demineralised or distilled and the only adulterant permitted in the methanol is up to 0.5 per cent of pyridine if required by local regulations as a de-naturant. In the past there were several different grades of water/methanol mixtures, e.g. 45/55/0 for turbine engines, 50/50/0 for piston engines (this was also available with 1% corrosion inhibiting oil and was designated 50/50/1) and 60/40/0, however, with decreasing demand Shell now only supplies 45/55/0. The table shows the principal characteristics of Shell demineralised water and of the commonly used methanol/water blend.

Source is Consumer Group Network.

As you can all see, additives make up a specific portion of aviation fuels. There is something else you should all know: aviation fuel is a leaded fuel, as opposed to the UNleaded fuel you use in your personal vehicles. Lead is used in all aviation fuels as an antiknock compound.

So, not only will Leo da C be expelling CO2 and CO into the atmosphere, he will also be adding lead compounds to the mixture.

Hondo, when there are no batteries a slide rule is great. If we could put Armstrong on the moon with a slide rule and a computer that could basically receive flight data only, it’s good enough for me to do a few things with….

But I have to admit these new scientific calculators apps downloaded on your smart phone are outrageously cool….

Ex-PH2: in theory, paper and pencil works. In practice, not so much – particularly when you start using trig functions, square/cube/nth roots, natural log/exponentiation, and the like. Quick: how do you determine the 4th root of (3 times a given power level ) / (4 times pi times the Holtzmann constant times a constant radius cubed) using a pencil and paper? (That’s the calculation needed to figure out the effective [AKA black body] temperature of a spherical object radiating a constant level of power.)

Yes, one can indeed do that to a reasonable degree of accuracy with pencil and paper and a math handbook containing tables of logarithms. But unless they’re a masochist, why on earth would anyone want to do that calculation by hand? (smile)

OWB: any solar-cell powered calculator I’ve seen would typically work, even with dead batteries, if there was enough light to read the display. And if there’s not enough light to read an LCD calculator display, you generally won’t be able to see the paper clearly enough to calculate by hand either. (smile)

The former technology is used in many types of sensors. The latter is used in a wide variety of electronic components and devices.

Daylight film: working from memory, this was typically used in natural light (daylight) or with blue-corrected flash bulbs; tungsten film was generally used with floodlights, if I recall correctly. I’m only an occasional photographer and transitioned to digital photography years ago, so that could well be wrong or only a partial answer.

Can’t really discuss the chemical changes that occur in film on exposure and/or during development, other than to say that in general that’s what causes old-style chemical film to register an image – e.g., chemical changes in the emulsion due to the incoming photons which strike it during exposure. Don’t believe I ever knew the precise details, so I’d have to look them up.

My point in providing the example was to show that technology advances and provides new and more useful tools regularly. At some point, many of even the best old tools – no matter how useful they were at one time – become obsolete and become little more than curiosities. Sort of like having a blacksmith forge you a pound of nails vice buying them from Lowe’s or Home Depot – interesting, but probably no longer terribly practical.

IMO slide rules have reached that point – and yes, I’ve used one myself in the past. Also IMO, film cameras are fast approaching the same.

OK, you get the pass on CCD and CMOS (except you misspelled complementary — naughty, naughty). But the remaining answers are:
To produce an accurate color rendition of an object photographed in daylight or artificial light, the film used must have an emulsion with the correct color temperature sensitivity.

Daylight film is color-sensitive to radiated light at a color temperature equal to 5500 degrees Kelving or 5500K, the same color temperature of our sun, or yellow.

Tungsten film is color-sensitive to radiated light at a color temerature equal to between 3200K and 3400K, or blue/green. (Blue is negative film, green is positive film)

Kodachrome film, which is no longer made, was sensitive to a color temperature of 3200.

The correct name for silver in a film emulsion is silver halide. When a photon strikes an undeveloped silver halide grain, it causes the silver to release an electron thereby causing the grain to ‘lock’ or clump. Silver halide grains become visible as images when processed with photographic chemistry. The larger the grains, the lower the film speed. Eastman Kodak produced film in ASA/ISO speeds from 12 to 4400. Kodak Recording Film 2475 was an extremely high speed and extremely grainy film developed during the Cold War for surveillance in extremely low light. It could be pushed to ASA speeds of 24,000 by increasing development time and reducing agitation.

And, in regard to Planck’s black body formula, I will only add that T = 1600, and Planck’s formula was the genesis of quantum mechanics.

Besides, what could possibly be more fun that solving equations on a blackboard or a roll of butcher’s paper?

Ex-PH2: we’re saying the same thing about tungsten film in different ways, and are in violent agreement.

I’m pretty sure tungsten film was optimized for that particular temperature because it was optimized for use with the old tungsten-element photofloods commonly used by photographers years ago. I believe that is how it came by its name of “tungsten film”.

From what I’ve read, the tungsten filaments in those photofloods actually were at temperatures above 3000K (depending on the type) during operation. (That’s getting close to tungsten’s melting point, and is probably why they had such short rated lifespans; a normal light bulb’s tungsten filament isn’t pushed that hard, and is “only” at temperature of around 2800K.) In contrast, the sun’s surface is generally thought to be somewhere around 5780K – hence the higher “color temperature” of “daylight”. Daylight has a color temperature of 5500K because it is emitted by something that actually is roughly that hot – the sun’s surface.

Get On Board

Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.

Privacy guaranteed. We never share your info.

About thisainthell

We are all military combat veterans and we write primarily from that perspective. Everyone who writes here has a Combat Infantry Badge, a Combat Medic Badge, a Combat Action Badge or a Combat Action Ribbon. We write about issues that matter to combat veterans..read more »